click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
to know who changed these talking points, and here with more on that, the author of the secrets of the fbi, chief washington correspondent for newsmax.com ronald kessler is back along with the former assistant secretary of defense, bing west is here with us as well. this is very frustrating to me because i feel we've been lied to. here we have this event happen, almost instantaneously petraeus knows what happened. the libyan president told us within a day what had happened. people on the ground told us what had happened. the state department watched in real-time. five days after, susan rice didn't know what happened and two weeks later the president couldn't say definitively it was a terrorist attack. is that plausible? >> shawn, there's no reason to have the argument in a way because every day the president is given a daily brief by the cia, so all one has to do in one of these intelligence committees is say well, let me see the brief that the president received on those days. it's either going to be in there or it's not. the problem when the white house doesn't want to even reveal what w
hours, where apparently the acting director of the cia told the senators that it was the fbi that changed the talking points, that removed the reference to al-qaeda, and he had a reason for it in the meeting. he said it was because they didn't want to hurt an ongoing criminal investigation, and now later today the cia came out and said, well, he misspoke. so it's now the fourth or fifth iteration of who changed the talking points, which isn't something that happens when you're actually telling the truth. >> sean: this is the problem susan rice has and the white house has, is if david petraeus knew instantly, and charlie lamb says that the state department was watching this in real time, and they were getting reports on the ground, calls for help to the cia annex, and the libyan president, all of these things happened within 24 hours, there's no justification at all to go blame a youtube video. if their explanation is, well, we didn't want to jump the gun, then they couldn't jump the gun on that excuse either. so that doesn't fly. >> right. >> i'm not surprised by what they sa
community there including folks from the state department, the f.b.i., everybody there was asked do you know who made these changes. nobody knew. the only entity that reviewed it was that was not there is the white house. >> so clapper was in the room and refused to take responsibility just last week. now, all of a sudden, that pressure is mounting on the white house and he steps forward to admit culpability. john mccain released a statement quote, this latest episode is why many of us is so frustrated and suspicious of the actions of the administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. still with us is john bolton and liz cheney. you i hate to think that the director of national intelligence is liar. apparently she contradict go what he testified to just last week. is there another explanation? >> this whole thing. this is not a white house i would point out that has credibility on issues like this. people may not recall that back in 2009 then dni ambassador blair sent a memo to the white house saying how effective enhanced interrogation was. they took references out there. you have a r
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)